CNU20: Shootout at the New Urbanism Congress

I knew there was the possibility that this month's Congress of New Urbanism — CNU20 — in West Palm Beach would be an exercise in brainwashing. While I was excited to be meeting some of the thinkers at the forefront of my profession, I certainly was aware that the founders of the movement were opinionated and outspoken. The number of attendees has way outgrown the close dinner group that began New Urbanism more than 20 years ago, but heavy hitters like Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, Ellen Dunham-Jones, and John Norquist, to name a few, still have a big hand in the direction of the movement.

I was pleasantly surprised to find just the opposite. The first session was a debate on theology between two very prominent urban designers, Daniel Solomon and Andres Duany, which set the tone of challenging our own and each other’s beliefs in what New Urbanism is and should be.

During what is hopefully the worst economic downturn I will ever see there has been almost no New Urbanism development. The movement, along with the rest of the housing market, has stalled. When the market picks back up will developers and planners condemn the stringent LEED-ND framework, a prescriptive guide for sustainable development developed in part by the CNU?

Daniel Solomon thinks so. In Solomon’s lecture, which he humorously titled “My Dinner with Andres,” he challenged the prescriptive and code-based turn New Urbanism had taken, saying that the movement’s implementation guide, particularly LEED-ND, “strangles and sucks the life out of the American economy.” He blamed Duany’s Smart Code and Manual, describing Duany as a man who was rigorous and defiant in his beliefs, and simultaneously as a man who questioned his own ideas constantly, saying “Andres Duany creates an intellectual straightjacket that others wear, but that he won’t even put one arm in.”

I think I understand why people gravitate towards concrete codes and manuals. We live in a time that is full of challenges for our built environment. People feel comforted by a set of rules: Here’s a problem, and if I follow this, I can fix it. This equals confidence and control for urban designers and planners.

But perhaps Solomon’s most striking argument was to call the New Urbanist code a “reductive certitude” that was no different than Le Corbusier’s Athens Charter. For the uninitiated: Just the mention of this document makes planners shudder. It is blamed for some of the biggest idealistic planning screw-ups ever. Solomon’s argument was that, like Duany’s Smart Code, Le Corbusier's plan was written with certainty, and with little room for questioning. It was a quite a slam to compare Andres Duany, the founder of the very movement to which all in attendance subscribe, to Le Corbusier, often cited as the destroyer of city life. Man, were we in for a rebuttal.

And we got one.

I was eagerly watching the first row for the response of some of the New Urban heavies. Ellen Dunham-Jones leapt up immediately, cheering and loudly applauding. It was obvious that there was a divide in this union, but it existed in a context that welcomed it.

Duany came out on fire in defense of his “straightjacket,” saying that the code allows for local calibrations and adaptations. His argument focused on the fact that the real world is a world of laws, not a world of opinions and ideas, and that the same system that was used to destroy the urban form can be responsible for fixing it. Disputing the notion that without a code planners will be free, he made the case that the building code is the default setting for US municipalities, it is not going away, and that we need to use it to make change. In short, don’t fight the system; use it to your advantage.

Interestingly, Duany also defended those who love traditional suburbs. He described research exercises where people were shown a picture of an ideal New Urbanism development, and a picture of typical suburban scenario. The former usually contained a compact, dense cottage with a picket fence and beautiful streetscape. The latter contained a plain house with garage alongside the front door, sitting on a large, empty street. Despite the obvious attempt to sway opinion, 30% of people still chose the suburban scenario as their optimal place to live. He takes the stance that these people’s freedom to choose older-style suburbs must be protected, and that his smart code provides for that.

I challenge you to watch the session here and ask yourself the same questions about New Urbanism that these men do. I look forward to sharing my response to the other sessions at CNU20. Stay tuned....

Comment viewing options

defense of his “straightjacket,” saying that the code allows for local calibrations and adaptations. His argument focused on the fact that the real world is a world of laws, not a world of opinions and ideas, and that the same system that was used to destroy the urban form can be responsible local bankruptcy lawyers

New Urbanism development, and a picture of typical suburban scenario. The former usually contained a compact, dense cottage with a picket fence and beautiful streetscape. http://www.currentcarloanrates.net/